tcahill
I'm trying to work up a complex scheme for a home theater system I'm building this week. With the old adage "Give a fellow a hammer and he'll see every problem as a nail" in my mind, I'm trying to use PB for the task. The "Holy Grail" for me would be an interactive AI type interface that I can share with my clients to
1) conceptually design a highly effective systems integration project.
2) document that integrated system for myself and my clients
3) [In the future] drive that system, triggering macros, etc that would interact with the physical world. BrainEKP, perhaps?

This project is part of a much more comprehensive residential automation package that I have been putting together, so I am very concerned about the extensibility of the result.

I've got:
.five different devices (thoughts), each with...
..Inputs (jump comma-thoughts), Outputs (child comma-thoughts) and two way ports (jump comma-thoughts?)
...VHF and RF Coaxial cable
...Composite (RCA)
...HDMI/DVI
...Digital and Optical Audio
...Component (Y, Pb, Pr)
...USB
...iLink (firewire, etc)
...Ethernet

Thought Types
.Device
..Audio/Video
...Source
...Monitor
..Audio
..Video
.Location
.Connection
..Composite L/R/V/S (ie., left/right/video/SVideo)
..Y, Pb, Pr & Audio (ie., component video)
..HDMI
..DVI

Link Types
.In (to be matched with thought type "location")
.Input
.Output

Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting wabbit.
Quote
tcahill
How important are redundancies in data representation? If I have set up a hierarchy of thought type device types and functions, should I resist the urge to create parents to represent the same information?

The tug towards re-doing the thought types as parent thoughts is motivated by the visibility of explicit thoughts created as:
.Device
..Audio/Video
...Source
over the same thing as nested types (where only the lowest level type in the cascade of types is evident).

At the same time, the use of thought types rather than thought hierarchies allows the result to be visually much clearer. It seems I keep coming back to the issue of monolithic thought types. I'm finding that I want a thought to have multiple thought types (to represent the multiplicity of properties that most items possess). Is this just a mental block of mine? For best clarity, must each property of a thought be indicated by a related thought (comma-thought) to the main thought?

I am considering Shelley's lead that thought types work well as subjective references that highlight particular relevances in a plex. This would suggest a much less 'formal' use of types than I am attempting.

In this case only, I've realized a very pragmatic reason to use parent thoughts rather than thought types: the ability to quickly see all available connectors for a particular feed.
Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting wabbit.
Quote
ShelleyHayduk

This is something we bump into alot when organizing data. It does depend on the data set but you can actually do both. For instance in an IT network map you might have a parent or area of Thoughts for databases and the acutal instances of the databases can be listed below even though they are the same Thought Type.

Shelley
Quote

Newsletter Signup  Newsletter        Visit TheBrain Blog   Blog       Follow us on Twitter   Twitter       Like Us on Facebook   Facebook         Circle Us on Google+  Google         Watch Us on Youtube  YouTube       

TheBrain Mind Map & Mindmapping Software     Download TheBrain Mind Mapping Software